192 comments:

What's the point, Ann? That little old Alaska experience doesn't measure up to the big' ol Chicago machine experience?

Liberals and Democrats are showing this election, nore than any other, what vermin they actually are. Their throw-feces-at-Sarah-Palin-and-see-what-sticks method of dumping is shameful and strikingly wrong for America.

Obama should be a real man, grow a pair and come out and denounce the misogynistic Democrat ways of desperation. But that won't happen.

Personally, the thought of mass suicide by Democrats when they lose in November . . . I'm sorry, what was I saying?

There is a level of complexity to running a state government that far outweighs the complexity of running a city government of the same size. Running a state the size of Alaska, with a huge geographic area and a lot of complicated oil issues just outclasses getting the garbage picked up. It's kind of obvious.

The whole "executive experience" line should expire by the end of next week. If we're going to pick someone with as limited and minimal experience as Palin, we may as well pick the mayor of Fort Worth.

Palin is a laughing stock, but let's not be too hard on her. I'm sure she's a nice lady (if not out of touch with the majority of Americans with her ultra conservative views).

The real person we should be concerned with McCain. What does this say about his judgment? Country First? Not so much. Chilling.

I've been reading up on this "Troopergate" scandal, and it honestly makes Palin look pretty bad. The allegations against the trooper were first brought up long after the fact in a bitter custody dispute between the trooper and Palin's sister. This all happened before Palin was elected governor. And then after she was elected governor, inexplicably, 14 different members of Palin's gubernatorial staff called the commissioner of public safety, pressuring the commissioner to fire the trooper. What the trooper had allegedly done was not good, but whether it deserved firing was certainly debatable.

The pressure shows all the marks of being motivated by revenge and perhaps a desire to make the trooper look worse in the ongoing custody dispute, rather than a concern for public safety and the dignity of the uniform.

There's an ongoing investigation, but what's already out there in the media reports and already been admitted by Palin looks pretty bad.

If I were Obama, I'd be jumping all over this. But then, McCain's campaign must have already looked this whole issue over thoroughly and decided to go forward anyway. Maybe they know something we don't. Maybe this trooper did some things that are much worse than what's been reported so far. Or maybe Palin's other obvious qualities were just that indispensable and made her a risk worth taking, and maybe McCain was just really that desperate.

Why don't you use a more palatable example, since most people don't know that much about Ft. Worth. AK has a larger population than: Boston, Seattle, Portland, Madison!, Milwaukee, and almost San Francisco.

True. People spell it Forth Worth all the time. Nobody misspells Alaska. Forth Worth is the same as Tuscon as far as it goes. Under the Tuscon Sun, next to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base and the mothball air fleet.

If population were so important, we wouldn't have two and only two senators from each state.

Ah, population is important, as it dictates the number of House Reps your state gets. Alaska has ONE.

And from what I remember, during the constitutional convention the small states and large states agreed upon two senators per state so there would be some system of checks and balances within each state, or if one of them was sick or died there would still be one senator left. That's why that number (2) has never changed.

ZPS thinks Palin is joke, never mind that by any metric she is infinitely better qualified than a state senator and a US senator with the sum total of 140 days of actual service in the senate. In other words Obama doesn't even rise to the level of a joke. What does the Obama nomination say about the judgment of democrat primary voters?

As for being out of touch with the majority of Americans, the last democrat elected as a liberal was Lyndon Johnson. And that was more out of sympathy for the murdered JFK and the perception that Goldwater was crazy rather than affinity for liberalism. The last democrat who ran as a liberal and won without Johnson's advantage was Harry S Truman in 1948. Sixty years ago. Johnson, forty four years ago.JFK ran as hawk,stronger on national defense than Nixon. LBJ did not seek re-election. Carter ran as a Southern conservative democrat and just barely beat Ford. The only unelected president and the guy who pardoned Nixon. Clinton ran as a good ole boy and if it wasn't for Perot, would have never been elected. So dude get this into your head. No progressive running as a progressive is ever going to get elected president in the foreseeable future. Compared to Rezko and Ayers, Troopergate is a parking ticket.

Sarah Palin is an independent spirit. She is tough as nail. She loves the outdoor. She hunts moose and caribous. She fish. She is from Alaska ...the last American frontier. Which president she reminds you of?

The allegations against the trooper were first brought up long after the fact in a bitter custody dispute between the trooper and Palin's sister.

They were also found to be true by an internal state trooper investigation, which is why the guy originally got suspended. This was all before Palin became governor.

I'm curious how the hell a guy who tasered his own stepson and threatened to murder his father-in-law got to keep a job as a cop. It just goes to show that unions will cover for their own, no matter how odious the member.

I love it! And actually, yes, I like that about her. It is very revealing of her and her ideas about life itself. So very very much of our culture treats people themselves as a disease on the face of the earth... a horrible, negative, outlook. My children or grandchildren will build rocket ships and go to the stars. Life is beautiful. Children are wealth, and future, and optimism.

This pick undercuts the only argument McCain has made about Obama. Can you run those "Obama has no experience to lead" ads anymore when you've just proclaimed to the nation Sarah Palin is the best choice to be President should something happen to you in office??

Jeez people even a hard-core righty like Ponnuru isn't buying it.

You may think McCain has scored some major coup, but I don't think this choice is going to wear well.

You guys are so afraid that Obama is going to win, you're really overdoing it. At least we Democrats have had Obama in our political lives for the last few years, and he's debated, fought, and conquered the venerable Clinton machine. We've had a while to grow comfortable with him.

Are you sure? Did Clinton fire any one for not hooking him up with a chick who caught his eye?

I don't remember if the those particular accusations against Clinton panned out or not. Assuming they did, the problem was that firing a guy for not helping you get laid is not something the electorate tends to sympathize with. Firing a guy who beat up your sister and threatened to kill your dad? I suspect that's a wash, electorally speaking.

What I'm really looking forward to, though, is hearing the "feminist" groups grit their teeth and argue that you can't necessarily trust the accuser because sometimes women lie about abuse. They haven't been stirred to sing that tune since Juanita Broderick came forward.

Did anyone notice in the population comparisons that Alaska is bigger that Washington, DC? Even if you throw in Congress, Alaska is still bigger. So, Palin certainly has executive experience in running a place larger than DC, and that's what she would be doing *if she were President*. But she's the VP pick, and the really inexperienced one is the *Presidential* pick for the Dems.

"If we're going to pick someone with as limited and minimal experience as Palin, we may as well pick" . . . Obama.

I am utterly, utterly amazed at the ability of Obama supporters to attack Palin's experience with a straight face. I sit there, waiting for them to crack up under their own self-awareness, and they just don't. They actually think they're making sense.

Maybe you should talk to some actual Republicans sometime instead of having pretend conversations with your George Bush bobblehead.

Palin is one of approximately three popular Republican politicians in the entire United States right now. Yes, people who follow Republican politics had heard of her. She's been getting mentioned as a potential VP pick since back when we figured Hillary would be the Democratic nominee. If people are a little overenthusiastic about her it is because we've been spending the last few months thinking "Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, I can't believe we're stuck voting for John McCain".

I am utterly, utterly amazed at the ability of Obama supporters to attack Palin's experience with a straight face.

I'm mostly just amused at their failure to realize how it is going to play when the Obama campaign rips into *another* female rival as unqualified for office. Biden could probably get away with that, since he's been in the Senate since the war of 1812 -- but a nobody like Obama, bashing one woman after another? That'll really appeal to all those women voters who were bumping up against the glass ceiling back when Obama was getting legacied into Harvard.

Keep in mind that I'm predisposed to like Palin. But the trooper claims that the taser was set to "test" and that the stepson wanted to see what it felt like to be tased. If that's true, it was still a very stupid thing for the trooper to do, but like I said, debatable whether it's a firable offense. My understanding is that police officers get tased as part of their training.

I'm aware that the trooper was alleged to have threatened to kill the father-in-law, but I haven't seen that he's admitted to that or that that was found to be proven. If he said something like that, I wonder what the father-in-law might have said or did to provoke such a reaction.

Somehow the several articles I read on this didn't mention that the trooper allegedly beat up the sister, though they mentioned the alleged death threat against the dad, the taser incident, and the alleged beer-drinking in the cop car.

As I said on another post, if the guy was really that much of a scum bag, I'd forgive a little undue abuse of gubernatorial power in an effort to give the guy his due. Beating up one's sister would fit the bill, I think. I'm not that much of an ethical purist.

However, I've seen how ugly these custody disputes can get. The truth does get bent to suit the parties' purposes. Husbands have been known to get railroaded by a conniving bitch of an ex-wife and her infinitely sympathetic family. In the absence of knowing all these dirty details, we're left with what looks to be a pretty obvious abuse of government office to pursue a personal vendetta.

"In the absence of knowing all these dirty details, we're left with what looks to be a pretty obvious abuse of government office to pursue a personal vendetta."

OTOH, if a person is disgusted with business as usual and the (first-hand) experience of the inability of regular people to have their complaints taken seriously by the establishment... they might just run for office to solve the problem.

Fort Worth, with 681k, is a good-sized city. When you include the other booming bedroom communities in the corridor between it and Dallas, you have quite a few more. It's larger than Milwaukee, and four times as large as Madison. I know Prof. A has family in Texas, and I don't jump to the same conclusion that some here have -- i.e., I don't infer that her comparison of Alaska's population to that of Fort Worth's is a put-down of either the city or the state. It's just an observation.

There are some significant differences, of course, between governing cities and governing states. Rudy Giuliani governed a much larger population, including a large contingent of police and fire fighters, but had no authority over the national guard. His city budget was huge, but it had problems and opportunities distinct from those faced by states (e.g., dealing with the federal government over Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements). He presided over jails, but not prisons. He dealt with a city council, but never with a state legislature (whose members tend to represent more far-flung interests than city-councilmen).

Alaska, in particular, has unique challenges and opportunities, sometimes intermixed. Right now, state coffers are extremely flush. Unlike the corrupt GOP predecessors whom she's run out of state government (including the incumbent GOP governor and attorney general and GOP party chairman), however, she not only refused to engage in pork projects and back-scratching, she actually cut $268 million from state spending bills! Her state's citizens have the least access to low-cost natural gas, despite its abundance, of any state in the union, so she's taken the lead in securing competitive, transparent energy company negotiation (over the temper tantrums of established big players ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and BP) for a new cross-state natural gas pipeline that will not only serve her constituents but bring natural gas to the lower 48 states.

It's no knock on the City of Fort Worth or its mayor to point out that his role didn't permit him to do anything remotely comparable to these sorts of things.

It is a knock on Barack Obama, however, to point out that in 3-1/2 years as a U.S. senator, he's achieved nothing remotely comparable to what she's done in merely 1-1/2 year as governor of Alaska, and to point out that he's never, ever strayed from the Democratic Party line in any way that ever put him at political risk. Measured by accomplishments rather than months, her record is superior to his. And she's in the #2 spot, ladies and gentlemen, friends and neighbors.

Not from Harvard. Not a messiah. But a public servant, and a reformer.

synova, let's accept your premise, even though there is not a shred of proof for it, and assume with you that Gov. Palin did fire Monagan because Monagan wouldn't fire Wooten.

You're lining up with Wooten on this?

You're siding with the maker of terroristic death threats? The trooper who drinks on duty in his cop car? The trooper who uses a deadly weapon to violate the laws he's supposed to help protect? The bully who Tasered his own 10-year-old son?

Oh, that's very enlightened of you. The line to support poor Trooper Wooten -- who, by the way, has not lost his job, but is still carrying that gun, badge, and Taser -- forms at the FAR LEFT.

Fen, I'm the one who sounds like a propaganda organ?? You yourself sound like a knee-jerk Republican whose mind was made up the first time you laid eyes on Sarah Palin. Screw any facts that don't fit the message.

John K: The Tasering, the moose-shooting, the beer-drinking in the squad car, and the threat to "put a f'ing bullet" in the brain of Sarah Palin's father (if he helped his other daughter, Wooten's ex-wife, find a divorce lawyer) -- these things were all factual findings from the disciplinary process. They are not in dispute.

"'The record clearly indicates a serious and concentrated pattern of unacceptable and at times, illegal activity occurring over a lengthy period, which establishes a course of conduct totally at odds with the ethics of our profession,' Col. Julia Grimes, then head of Alaska State Troopers, wrote in March 1, 2006, letter suspending Wooten for 10 days." And: "Beyond the investigation sparked by the family, trooper commanders saw cause to discipline or give written instructions to correct Wooten seven times since he joined the force, according to Grimes' letter to Wooten."

My understanding is that police officers get tased as part of their training.

I seem to recall that you found the "our troops get waterboarded as part of their training" argument to be a less than convincing defense of the use of waterboarding on prisoners, John.

I'm aware that the trooper was alleged to have threatened to kill the father-in-law, but I haven't seen that he's admitted to that or that that was found to be proven.

The Anchorage News Daily has a summary of the accusations against Wooten here.

However, I've seen how ugly these custody disputes can get. The truth does get bent to suit the parties' purposes.

That's certainly true. On the other hand the guy's been married four times, so I'm inclined to think he's probably a dick. The accumulated evidence certainly suggests a guy with drinking and anger-management problems, as well as a lack of common sense. All in all, not really someone I'd want as a cop. Apparently the case against him was bad enough that -- against, before Palin was governor -- he was told by his commander that if he screwed even once more he'd be fired.

Trooper Wooten was disciplined. He was suspended for ten days without pay.

The issue is not what he did, nor is it whether the punishment he received was sufficient or whether Palin is right that he should have been fired.

The issue is whether the Governor (who had a personal interest in the matter due to trooper Wooten being her sister's ex-husband) used her official position to pressure the Public Safety commissioner to alter his handling of what should be an internal disciplinary matter, and then fired him when the discipline was not done to her liking.

If she ever becomes President then what will she do to people who she has a personal disagreement with anyway? Sic the FBI on them? Use the power of the Federal Government to lean on their employers to get fired? Blacklist them so they can't get another job? The implications are chilling.

Revenant, I actually had it (at my own blog at 2:00 p.m. this afternoon, and that in turn was drawing on something I'd written on July 21.

End-of-July polling in Alaska -- long after this so-called "scandal" had been beaten back and forth by Palin's political opponents -- still showed her with an approval rating in the high 80s. I think they recognize that this was a desperate effort to hurt her by Andrew Halcro, the rental car dealer who ran a distant 3rd in the 2006 governor's race, and who's been using his blog ever since to try to cast some stain on Palin's reputation.

If the Mayor of Fort Worth fired the police commissioner because an internal police personnel matter did not reach the conclusion that the mayor wanted, that would be a scandal and the mayor would be accused of overstepping his or her bounds. If it happened that the mayor also had a personal interest in the matter, then you know darn well that there would be an investigation launched.

eli blake: If you're right -- if this is about what the Governor did -- then show that the Governor did something.

Show that she -- as opposed to someone on her staff, acting without her authority or knowledge -- did something other than make vaguely suggestive comments to Monegan.

Until then, you're blowing smoke. You're imputing actions to her without any proof that she actually took them. You're guessing.

It's at least equally as plausible that others, including the now-suspended staffer who made the most overt suggestion (which still wasn't very overt) to Monegan, were horrified (as I am, as you should be, as any decent human being is) with the story of Wooten's abuse, and that he assumed Gov. Palin would approve of what he was saying without her knowledge.

You end up defending a monster while squawking unproven allegations. You really want to be "that guy"?

The issue is whether the Governor (who had a personal interest in the matter due to trooper Wooten being her sister's ex-husband) used her official position to pressure the Public Safety commissioner to alter his handling of what should be an internal disciplinary matter, and then fired him when the discipline was not done to her liking.

No, actually.

The issue is whether or not, in the event that proof is found that Palin did that, people think she was wrong to do so. Voters don't care about whether or not the appropriate bureaucratic processes were followed, they care about whether justice was done. If they think Wooten was a bad cop, they're going to sympathize with the people who tried to get him fired -- not the government officials and union bosses who left him on the force.

You can call it "corruption"; you might even be technically right to do so, for that matter. But voters define political corruption as "using your power to do bad things", not as "failing to respect government policy".

They do when (1) they're political opponents of the governor, who has upset business as usual (in an extremely corrupt culture), and (2) said governor says she welcomes the investigation, has nothing to hide, and called the investigator on the same day he was hired to volunteer to be interviewed ASAP.

If the Mayor of Fort Worth fired the police commissioner because an internal police personnel matter did not reach the conclusion that the mayor wanted, that would be a scandal and the mayor would be accused of overstepping his or her bounds.

When the verdicts in the "excessive use of force" for the Rodney King officers were returned, were you one of that minority of Americans who said "that settles it; they're not guilty, and should be allowed to return to work"? Or were you, perhaps, part of that majority of Americans who favored re-trying them on the same charges -- conveniently disguised as "civil rights violations" -- until the correct verdict was reached?

Like I said above, people care about justice. They only care about proper procedure when it's convenient.

Juries often make mistakes. So for that matter do internal review boards.

But in either case, it is not up to the executive to intervene and substitue his (or her) perception of 'justice' for what has been decided by those who have the duty to so decide. If there is a problem with the process then work to reform the process, but not 'fix' it according to your own ideas on a case-by-case basis. And if you have a personal interest in the case then that goes double.

If she ever becomes President then what will she do to people who she has a personal disagreement with anyway? Sic the FBI on them? Use the power of the Federal Government to lean on their employers to get fired? Blacklist them so they can't get another job?

"I interpret her second paragraph, though, to be speculation that Sarah Palin ran for governor to prosecute this grudge.

If that's not what Synova meant, she's free to say so."

I was playing devil's advocate. What if she did?

Now, from what I've heard her stated reasons for running for office was reform. Is it reasonable to think that her personal experience with a system that seemed unresponsive to regular people played into that? Logically... I'd hesitate to suggest that it *didn't*.

I simply don't see anything scandalous about running for office to make changes. Isn't this pretty much what we expect? Sure, it does make a difference if it was a *grudge* issue, but I think that a reasonable person would agree that this particular trooper should have absolutely been fired by someone else long before... only he wasn't.

If it really was a regular "my sister's ex is a jerk, I'm gonna screw him" situation that would be different. Much.

But it doesn't seem to be. If she went along with all the other good old boys and *only* did this... that would be different. She's gotten a whole lot of the right people mad at her and it can hardly be attributed to inappropriate favor for friends or family.

And as Rev said... people care more about justice. A bad cop is not going to get sympathy and a bad cop protected by the "system" is going to get even less.

So, if we assume (though we can't know, I think) that, worse case, she actually ran for office so she could *do something*... it's not going to go over badly. Not with regular folks.

And if this is the worst scandal available? She's got nothing to worry about. Lord. Hasn't even one of her kids got a DUI?

(Her church might be an issue except that Obama *can't* make it one. He just can't.)

Maybe you should answer my question first. Did you think the officers should have been returned to duty, rather than being retried on a different charge for the same crime? Yes or no?

it is not up to the executive to intervene and substitue his (or her) perception of 'justice' for what has been decided by those who have the duty to so decide.

It is wrong for the executive to overrule juries because juries are (a) in the judicial branch and (b) protected by the Constitution. Bureaucratic review procedures are part of the executive branch and enjoy no constitutional protection. There's nothing wrong with overruling them, unless the law forbids doing so.

That's why they have a private investigator. The first report on this is due on October 31.

Just in time for the election, by the way.

I was going to ignore this one, but I've just got to ask -- do you actually, for one minute, think there's a Republican anywhere on Earth who is worried that the deciding factor in the election will be what voters think about the Vice Presidential candidate trying to get her sister's jerk of an ex-husband sacked?

Because it kind of sounds like you're trying to be ominous with that whole "just before the election" thing, and I for one am un-om'd.

Synova: Thanks for the clarification. Taking your hypothesis (while recognizing that you aren't vouching for it necessarily):

Becoming governor, because of the incredible political correctness of modern society and because of her own record as a reformer, would actually have been the path best calculated to ensure that Wooten would keep his trooper's job forever. So far, it's worked, hasn't it? Here there are tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of Americans debating Sarah Palin's actions on national TV, while only some tiny fraction of those (although a large fraction of the commenters here) recognize that it's Wooten who's a disgusting miscreant here.

Keep in mind, too, that Palin ran unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor in 2002 -- well before her sister's divorce proceedings or the family's complaint to the state troopers about Wooten.

I understand now that you were just throwing the idea out there, but I don't think it's a very plausible explanation for Sarah Palin's career path.

I did answer your question. I wrote, "sometimes juries make mistakes."

In both cases (Rodney King, O.J.) there was an avenue LEGALLY available to correct the mistake, through the civil courts (and by the way in the civil rights trial only two of the four were even found guilty there.)

The system is set up to take care of itself-- that is why there are both criminal and civil courts.

And even within the executive branch, there are procedures which when overruled by executive fiat often run foul of the law (think Alberto Gonzalez and Monica Goodling here.)

As far as the October 31 date, all I'd point out is that when the whole 'Bush was busted for DUI in the seventies' story broke less than a week before the 2000 election, it changed a 2-3 point Bush popular vote win (according to virtually every poll at the time) to a half point popular vote loss, and an electoral win that only happened because of poor ballot design in Palm Beach County.

.Alaska may not have many people, but it is the BIGGEST and wildest state by far, and that has to add to the difficulty of running it. Palin's going to convince McCain to want to drill in Alaska. I can see it now: "John, now listen, ANWR is a wasteland, it's not the "pristine" Alaska you refer to. Drill Mr. President, drill."

This is going to be fun. History will be made, one way or another, and it looks more likely now that it will be the right history.

Even more Hillary supporters will go for McCain now. Obama is no longer a near certainty. Heaven forbid something happens to McCain, but I believe Palin would rise to the occasion. She has the right attitude. Everyone knows Obama is NOT ready for POTUS, Palin is only for the VP. Look at Dan Quayle.

YEY SARAH PALIN! YEY John McCain! Great pick! The 1st woman for the GOP VP? SCORE!

I just read that Anchorage Daily News article about Trooper Wooten that Revenant and Beldar linked, and I have to say, I'm more persuaded than before that it's very likely that many of these accusations by Palin and sis were primarily designed to give sis a leg up in her fight for custody of the children. Shooting a freakin' moose, while the wife who actually has the permit is right there? Who cares! The tasing also looks quite innocent, from the testimony of the stepson who was subjected to it at his own request. The death threat about the father-in-law if he got his daughter a divorce lawyer? Stupid, but empty words. Why was he so pissed at the time he uttered them? As the investigator noted, since the words were not directed to the father-in-law, they did not constitute a crime. A 5 day suspension for being so careless and reckless in one's personal life seems appropriate. Getting behind the wheel of one's cop car with a cold one in one's hand? Probably just the way they do things in Alaska.

No complaints were made about these incidents at or around the time they occurred. Rather, the family brought up every damned thing they could ever remember this guy did wrong when it came time to fight for the custody of the children.

And apparently, the couple is still fighting over custody and visitation. If bringing all this stuff up in the family court proceedings didn't get sis everything she wanted in the way of custody / visitation, then maybe getting this guy fired from his job would further her cause.

This Wooten character doesn't come across as an angel in the ADN article, but neither does he come across as a monster. It's far from obvious to me that he should have been fired from his job.

I did answer your question. I wrote, "sometimes juries make mistakes."

I didn't ask you if you thought the jury made a mistake. I asked you if you supported re-trying the officers instead of letting them return to work. Quit dodging the question and answer it.

In both cases (Rodney King, O.J.) there was an avenue LEGALLY available to correct the mistake, through the civil courts

Maybe your memory of the time is fuzzy. The officers in the King trial were subjected to a second *criminal* trial for the incident. Do you find that appropriate?

Secondly, it is (so far as I know) legal for a governor to encourage government officials to fire state troopers, especially ones with lousy records. So there doesn't seem to be a legal problem here.

And even within the executive branch, there are procedures which when overruled by executive fiat often run foul of the law (think Alberto Gonzalez and Monica Goodling here.)

I see you're still suffering from the delusion that there was something illegal about the attorney firings. The only credible potential charges stemming from that relate to lying to Congress. The President and his attorney general can fire any attorneys they want, whenever they want, for any reason they feel like.

As far as the October 31 date, all I'd point out is that when the whole 'Bush was busted for DUI in the seventies' story broke less than a week before the 2000 election, it changed a 2-3 point Bush popular vote win (according to virtually every poll at the time) to a half point popular vote loss

Exactly. The discovery that the Presidential candidate had committed an illegal act that virtually everybody thinks is wrong only budged the vote about 3%. The discovery that the vice-presidential candidate tried to get a dirty cop fired -- something most people support -- won't do a thing.

If Americans cared about the letter of the law, Clinton would have been removed from office in his impeachment trial; he indisputably perjured himself, after all. But Americans don't care about the letter of the law. They care about doing what they think is right, even if what they think is right is at odds with what the rules say ought to be done. That's something the Republicans didn't understand ten years ago and you don't understand today.

I have to say, I'm more persuaded than before that it's very likely that many of these accusations by Palin and sis were primarily designed to give sis a leg up in her fight for custody of the children.

Well, I'm certainly not going to try reasoning you out of a position you didn't reason yourself into.

It's not like Wisconsin has anything approaching a major metropolitan center. Milwaukee is no more so than is Indianapolis. However, given a choice between living in Alaska or Wisconsin, it would be Alaska. There are too many diapered, whiny wussies who all want to be on the public dole in Wisconsin.

John K: Where do you get your standards for what constitutes acceptable behavior for state troopers? The Gestapo?

How about if the 10 year old stepson had wondered aloud how it feels to be shot in the knee with a service revolver. Would that be okay too? Or do you think that perhaps, maybe, a state police officer ought to have more judgment than a 10 year old?

A state trooper drinking beer in his cruiser? "That's probably the way they do things in Alaska." What do you think this is, 1950? In Russia?

Sorry, friend, you've lost any credibility with me, and I'm damn glad you aren't responsible for overseeing real life police officers. I'm about as politically incorrect as they come, but I can certainly spot a low-life scumbag when I've seen as many indicators as Trooper Wooten displays.

A state trooper drinking beer in his cruiser? "That's probably the way they do things in Alaska." What do you think this is, 1950? In Russia?

It's an especially pathetic argument when you consider that the Alaskans themselves decided to suspend the schmuck for doing it. I guess they were terrified by the political power of a small-town mayor or something.

I like that he managed to read a summary of the case in which literally nobody, including Wooten himself, was quoted defending his actions as acceptable... and conclude that everybody from the guy's ex-wife on up to the commander of the state troopers was lying, crooked, or deluded into thinking the guy had behaved badly.

All I can figure is that John's got a nasty divorce in his past and has Issues he needs to work out.

As I recall a previous occupant of the White House fired a bunch of civil servants in the Travel Office of the White House for ..... I'm sorry, what was their crime again?

And that wasn't even the person ELECTED to live in that house.

Was the person ELECTED to that office thrown out for those actions?

Would we ever consider electing that person's spouse to an office - say President - despite their having abused their (I'm sorry, their husband's) political clout for personal reasons?

I can't get too excited about this particular scandal because we had a situation in Ohio not long ago that also involved the governor (a Democrat) getting personally involved. Two idiotic state troopers thought it would be amusing to engage a KKK related prank on MLK Day. They were originally disciplined. Governor Ted Strickland (oft mentioned for Hillary's VP short list) ordered them fired.

I have no sympathy for those troopers in this case .... and there is no evidence they ever did anything else questionable to my knowledge. Were I an woman being abused at a state rest stop, I certainly wouldn't want Palin's ex-brother-in-law to be the one to show up in my hour of need.

I find it amusing to see Palin described as a "small town" mayor by the Obama campaign. Is it that he doesn't he know that Alaska is one of the 57 states in the US or is it what it appears? Obama simply refuses to respect accomplishments if they happen to be a woman's accomplishments?

Palin did what many people have done in this country. She started with a small job and, through hard work, perserverance, and self-education, moved up to bigger jobs. She didn't ride her husband's coattails to her office.

What experience does a small town mayor get? Working with various factions to come to a consensus is common. Providing leadership in times of crisis. Sounds like it would be helpful to somone having to be presiding officer of the US Senate or, if the need arise, running Cabinet meetings.

As someone who was able to talk to her state legislator by simply going over to his car dealership, I can't say 8 years as a Illinois state legislator strikes me as all that impressive. I don't recall who said it, but many Americans think of their state legislator as their best friends brother-in-law - not inspiring of awe, in other words.

As to Palin's role as governor ... she certainly has a unique situation in Alaska that lower 48 governors don't have. I think most people would be more impressed by someone who has to negotiate border issues with Canada and Russia than Utah and Montana. She also has been willing to take on corruption in her own party. That is something that Obama - who benefited from signatures being thrown out and not one, but two, opponents dropping out after their sealed divorce decrees were "mysteriously" opened.

In terms of a chilling effect, I would rather hear of a governor abusing personal powers to get a state trooper with Palin's former BIL credentials kicked out than a president who thinks silencing Stanley Kurtz (who, ironically, hasn't even found anything yet, but just wants to look) from speaking on a public television program is a good idea.

I know this is long, but one more comment:

The Palin choice engergized not just the base, but a lot of people. People are tired of a political process that gives us Bush*Clinton*Bush*(almost)Clinton. People *know* that there are a lot of bright, intelligent, energenic, decent people out there and can't believe we are stuck with the Congress/Administrations we have and have had.

People want change - Obama just misread the change they really want.

McCain/Palin may lose, but her opportunity is going to give some people hope that they can break into the political ruling class in this country.

Based on what I saw at my workplace in Ohio yesterday(both among woman and some 30- and 40- something men) I am not so sure that they will lose.

I think this is a pretty cool piece of information, actually, and don't see it as positive or negative, merely interesting. I especially appreciate Althouse's putting the city and state rankings up there, so that it is easy to play along at home. Thanks.

1. [Wooten] just kept screaming, "I'm gonna F'n kill your dad if he gets an attorney to help you."Wooten told troopers he never said anything like that about his father-in-law.

The investigation concluded he did. It wasn't a crime, because he didn't threaten Heath directly. But it did violate trooper policy, the investigation found.

....Since that divorce, Wooten remarried and divorced again.He remains on the force in Wasilla.

The Democrats may not want to use this particular smoking gun against Palin.Almost smoking gun.

2. "Alaska is a small and inconsequential state to be governor of", said VP candidate Joe Biden, Senator from the massively huge, ginormous, engorged, seemingly endless state of Delaware, which appears on many maps of the continental US.

Be aware that the printed word "DELAWARE" often obscures the land mass beneath it.

In a child's puzzle map of the United States, the tiny Delaware piece is so frequently lost that it is usually combined with neighboring Maryland (and the Chesapeake Bay).

It used to be called the "Blue Hen State", but they have more recently favored the title "Blue Hair State" (a reference to its rapidly aging population) in order to fend off the more common appellation, the "Hair Plug State".

from"My Travels to States People in Big Cities Laugh At Because They're Not Really Really Big Like Us. Aren't They Just So Cute?"by Crimea RiversTime Life Books 2002

Here is a question for those commenters who see this state trooper issue as a scandal.

If you witnessed first hand the superficial approach of a police department to one of their members with serious anger issues, what would you do when you found yourself in a position to correct the problem?

Ohio Anne - I think most people would be more impressed by someone who has to negotiate border issues with Canada and Russia than Utah and Montana.

They would be, if they were ignorant enough to think that Governors of States negotiate, make treaties and agreements with foreign nations. But they don't since the Constitution reserves that power ONLY to the Federal gov't, though they can delegate and fund to use state resources to promulgate foreign policy as it impacts states.

Palin has no more role negotiating issues with Russia and Canada than the Gov of Florida does with Cuba.=================I don't usually agree with Eli Blake, but his comments the illegality and the danger to society of high officials abuse of power are far more reasoned than Revenent's "let the mob decide if it is abuse" premise.===================Bearbee - Amen. And she is not a lawyer.

I think the performance of non-lawyers Bush/Cheney has temporarily silenced the crowd that believed a non-lawyer was an automatically better candidate for Prez/VP.========================Pogo - Alaska is a small and inconsequential state to be governor of", said VP candidate Joe Biden, Senator from the massively huge, ginormous, engorged, seemingly endless state of Delaware, which appears on many maps of the continental US.

Apples and oranges job comparison, as a person of your general high level of knowledge is fully aware.

The Constitution makes all 100 Senators equal with no regard for size of State. That means that a Biden or a Lieberman from tiny states have equal power of vote to a Boxer or a Schumer or Obama - and that is a wise thing. Until you think of Ted Stevens, Byrd, Teddy and Harry Reid having such clout - but that clout is a function of seniority and importance of Committee, not State size.They also have the same challenges in Senate work or "non-work" as it seems, and the only difference is it is cheaper to get elected Senator in Wyoming than in Florida.

But being a Governor or a Mayor is in large part more challenging as the population size and GNP get larger. Arnold has many more challenges than the Governor of Idaho, and the Mayor of NYC has a far tougher job than the mayor of a small town like Wasilia.

In a way, she reminds me of Marge Gunderson (from Fargo). Which is awesome.

Being from Alaska is good. She's not a Washington insider, and hasn't been that kind of ambitious seeker of political power. I like that.

Now whenever Obama goes on about bringing change to Washington, I'll think about the the moose-hunting hockey mom from Alaska kicking things up in the Capital. That's the kind of change I can believe in.

The current population of Alaska is larger than that of Virginia in 1776, a place that produced Washington, Jefferson, Madison, et al. Greatness can spring from small places. (Of course I'm writing from little ol' Fort Worth where we worry more about our royalty checks from the Barnett Shale than what others think about us).

Cedarford,It was a jest; mere japery in reference to Ann's post title that was meant to expose the very issue you just expounded on. But clearly it failed.

Anyway, how else could I work up to a hair plug reference?

It was recently discovered that Sen. Biden's hair plugs actually came from baby seals that Biden had clubbed to death himself. Said Biden, "But...but...I only killed the gay ones. How did I know? A guy can just tell."

Now the NYT has pointed out, to devastating effect, that Obama has two whole years more experience in govt than Palin...

If Obama were to be elected, he would be the most inexperienced president since Lincoln. That is not a mis print.

JFK - More experience than Obama, but still light in that area, quickly tested by the Soviets and almost got us anihilated in a nuclear war.

LBJ Veep and legislative leadershipNixon VeepFord - Never got elected, doesn't count, still more experienced than Obama by a loooong shot.Carter Governor of GA.Reagan Governor of CABush per Veep, couldn't possibly list his major accomplishments here.Clinton Governor of ArkansasBush fils Governor of Texas.

Obama Senator for 140 days, then decides he should be president on account of his good looks, nice voice, and idea that he can bring "tax relief" to the 100 million Americans who currently pay no federal taxes.

But being a Governor or a Mayor is in large part more challenging as the population size and GNP get larger.

This is only true however, because the consequences of failure on a gross level are more when you govern a larger state. However, on a per capita basis, the failure can be just as bad in a large or small state and therefore the decision making just as important.

Granted, Alaska has unique issues that most state don't have, mostly having to do with energy and the environment. However, those happen to be the largest issues of this election.

Would you rather have a governor of a small state who has been radically successful lead you or the governor of a large state who has been a poor performer lead you.

Would you rather own the stock of General Motors or a small company that is growing 50% a year.

But if the river was whiskey and I was a duckI'd dive to the bottom and I'd never come up.

And if wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

And if my mother-in-law had wheels she’d be a streetcar.

(2) Did anybody else see it on teh intertubes? Sarah Palin was having three way sex with her sister and her brother-in-law. It was all kinky-like and they’d take turns tazing each others genitals and they’d let the nephew watch his aunt getting it moosie style.

They used to hold satanic rituals in police cars ritually disemboweling cute, little puppies until the brother-in-law decided he’d rather live a clean, virtuous Christian life.

He gave it all up which made Palin insanely jealous because he was really hung and she needed it bad because her husband’s like a Ken doll – nothing down there but a smooth spot.

So she became Governor (aided by Satan and his dark minions), just so she could fire that poor, decent man and put his family out in the cold, cold Alaskan winter snow to die.

Would you rather own the stock of General Motors or a small company that is growing 50% a year.

The question is whether you would have a former top executive from GM or the CEO of a small company running GE. I think that's a pretty easy answer in the business world. GE isn't entrusting their brand to the CEO of Pets.com no matter how high their stock has risen.

Any of you fellow commenters ever been to Anchorage? The comparison to Ft. Worth is apt. The scale and cultural climate are similar.

Comparing Chicago to Arkansas makes sense when considering the political culture, but Chicago is reasonably economicallly successful. Not sure I can say the same about Arkansas (notwithstanding Wal Mart).

"The issue is whether the Governor (who had a personal interest in the matter due to trooper Wooten being her sister's ex-husband) used her official position to pressure the Public Safety commissioner to alter his handling of what should be an internal disciplinary matter, and then fired him when the discipline was not done to her liking."

Eh? The Public Safety Commissioner serves at the pleasure of the Governor, and his department is part of the executive branch the Governor heads. If doing his job in a way that's not to the Governor's liking isn't sufficient grounds for dismissal, then why even have him report to her? If I don't do my job to my boss' liking, I can get fired--why does a bureaucrat deserve more job security than I do? And if the Governor can't fire the commissioner for doing a lousy job, then who can?

Seriously, this notion that government bureaucrats deserve protection from the whims of elected officials is bizarre, undemocratic and ultimately corrosive to our political system. The only way we voters have of controlling the behavior of bureaucrats is through elected officials. If we tolerate limits on those officials' oversight, we're leaving the bureaucrats without any accountability at all. Why the heck would that be a good idea?

You ought to come down to Fort Worth my adopted home town. Its vibrant. Bass Music Hall and Sundance Square are here with a varied venue (if its good enough for Cliburn... Nuf said?). You can walk the streets at night because half the citizens carry and the other half know it. The taxes are low compared to any Northen City you can name.

If the Mayor of Fort Worth fired the police commissioner because an internal police personnel matter did not reach the conclusion that the mayor wanted, that would be a scanda...------------------------------------

Actually, no. That would be considered either prudent or typical Texa politics. Remember politics in Texas is big. Ross Perot once tried to get a town dissolved so he could build his own municipal tax district.

Joe Biden's only regret is his 1983 Flock of Seagulls hairdo. Not because it was deeply embarrassing, which it remains, but because, he says, "In retrospect, I should have been saving my hair for later."

Beldar: thanks for bringing facts and intelligent commentary to the discussion of "trooper gate" You brought the gun to the knife fight to use a bad metaphor. So lets see--our liberal friends just love the idea of a seriously troubled state trooper on the force.

Re experience: substitute Obama for Palin in the arguments about experience and what do you get? The question answers itself.

And I think most significantly, Palin's pick crystallizes the urban-rural divide in this country. Palin can actually handle a rifle and hold a salmon--Picture Obama on a boat in the bering sea holding a salmon.

Finally--Palin's pick will demonstrate that not only are the liberals our real racists, they are also the misogynistic elitists in this country.

It matters little what the babbling political classes think--Its the voters who go to the polls--the working class stiffs in Ohio and West Virginia who cling to their religion and guns, who will be the arbiters.

Look at the trend lines of the daily gallup tracking poll--McCain had already closed the gap--Obama is getting a post convention bounce but now the republicans have picked their team and going into the convention. Lets see what the tracking polls say in Mid September.

And I think most significantly, Palin's pick crystallizes the urban-rural divide in this country. Palin can actually handle a rifle and hold a salmon--Picture Obama on a boat in the bering sea holding a salmon.

McCain and Palin ae the real change candidates. Obama only talks about change. He has never enacted change. He has done nothing to challenge the corrupt Chicago machine. Instead he adopted it and used it to get ahead. The first thing Obama did was send an earmark back to his wife's south Chicago Hospital.

If the implication is that running a small state isn't sufficient experience (not that, having done well with Alaska, she could have been promoted to Virginia or Connecticut), take it up with the Founders; they're the ones who decided not to have the kind of system that solely rewarded the parliamentarian in the capitol climbing the greasy pole of his party's machine.

Have we really been worse off with Coolidges and Clintons than England with Baldwins and Heaths?

Ohio Anne - I think most people would be more impressed by someone who has to negotiate border issues with Canada and Russia than Utah and Montana.

They would be, if they were ignorant enough to think that Governors of States negotiate, make treaties and agreements with foreign nations. But they don't since the Constitution reserves that power ONLY to the Federal gov't, though they can delegate and fund to use state resources to promulgate foreign policy as it impacts states.

Oh, Cedarford, how sad for you.

You were so intent on delivering a condescending smack down that you failed to read what I said ... and look pretty foolish as a result.

Of course, governors do not make treaties with foreign governments. That Government 101 but thanks for reminding us of it.

I, of course, made zero reference to that in my post.

What I SAID was:

I think most people would be more impressed by someone who has to negotiate border issues with Canada and Russia than Utah and Montana.

As odd as it might sound to some people, if an industry has a pollution spill, that spill doesn't stop at the border. In taking precautions to protect the population and clean up that spill, responsible people would work with all those people involved regardless of which side of the border they were on. In Wyoming, that would be other states. In Alaska, that would be a different country.

Last time I crossed the Canadian border, I didn't see signs of an impenetrable fence covering every inch of the border between the US and Canada. Now, I have never crossed the border between Alaska and Canada, but I am guessing the fence doesn't exist there either. If that is true, then I am guessing on more than one occasion Alaskan officials and Canadian officials have had to negitiate border issues having to do with drug smuggling, escaping felons, etc, etc,

I personally am aware of at least one individual who works in Canada but happens to live in the US just across the border. I'm guessing that he is not the only one. Someone in the Alaskan state government has undoubtedly had to address the issue of people who cross the border to work.

And so on and so on ...

Palin has no more role negotiating issues with Russia and Canada than the Gov of Florida does with Cuba.

Oh, I don't know about that. If the US didn't have an embargo with Cuba, the Florida governor, in my opinion, would get on the phone occasionally to discuss some issues of common concern with Cuba.

We, of course, don't have an embargo with Canada.

But being a Governor or a Mayor is in large part more challenging as the population size and GNP get larger.

Theoretically, sure.

Of course, it is far more likely that a single, relatively common storm could take out the entire downtown or the major manufacturer in a small city than a large one.

The disaster may affect fewer people overall, but is equally devastating to each individual.

"I think the performance of non-lawyers Bush/Cheney has temporarily silenced the crowd that believed a non-lawyer was an automatically better candidate for Prez/VP."

Ha. Hahaha. AAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA...

That was a joke, right?

Lawyers ought to be constitutionally barred (Ha, HA!) from serving in any position of public trust, but I'd settle for keeping them out of the legislative branch (Though banning them from the benches would be excellent as well).

The way the system is set up now, lawyers make the law, lawyers judge the law, lawyers prosecute the law, and lawyers defend citizens from the law. It's a racket. An illegal monopoly (Only it's legal, because lawyers say it is). Basically, the American justice system is exactly organized crime.

The US has a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers. It's disgusting and despicable. We have the least desirable class of people - lawyers create nothing, produce nothing, and provide no essential service - running the show. It is quite far beyond ridiculous.

So, I can follow Ann's logic, the only state that can produce a governor qualified to be president is ... wait, I am looking for it in the constituion. But I guess if she was governor of Texas, Ann and the rest of the Obama "action alert" posters would be fine with it?

Red states tend to be mostly small states, where it is harder to take them over with a big city machine and massive voter fraud, for example Obama's former employer ACORN and Chicago.

To echo what lurker2209 wrote, it wouldn't require a one-day plane ride to send emergency relief to the outskirts of Fort Worth. The Prudhoe Bay and Aleutian chain residents are almost as far away from the seat of state government as California is from Canada.

In terms of simple population comparisons, couldn't we say that if Sweden were a city, it would be San Diego, CA?

Finally--Palin's pick will demonstrate that not only are the liberals our real racists, they are also the misogynistic elitists in this country.

Yeah, they're such racists and misogynists. That's why they picked an African-American as their Presidential nominee and a woman was the second-highest vote-getter. And the elitist line is such a GOP cliche as to be not worth responding to.

Ding-ding! Dumbass comment of the day goes to Roger J. And it's still early!

PS - Fort Worth is a great city (I like it better than Dallas), but the population comparison is worth pointing out. The fact is, Alaska is a tiny state when it comes to population, and for all intents and purposes is a territory that survives only because of transfer payments from the oil companies to its citizenry. Being Governor of that state for a little over a year after a lifetime of mediocrity (and sorry, populist drivel notwithstanding, there's nothing in Palin's past before becoming Governor that qualifies as something that would impress a potential employer on a resume) doesn't qualify one to be Vice President.

I think people might be getting a little carried away here. Let's remember, we're talking about a VP pick. Most voters will vote based only on the top of the ticket, particularly people who do not follow politics as a hobby (which leaves out most of the posters here). When was the last time a Presidential campaign was seriously damaged, or helped, by a VP pick? Palin could be an exception, but only as much as Obama allows it. Any complaints about Palin's inexperience from the Obama camp are only going to hurt his own campaign by focusing on his own inexperience, and people care about that because they vote the top of the ticket, not the bottom. It might not be logical, but the VP choices will be almost entirely ignored when votes are actually being cast. The best thing Obama can do at this point is to ignore Palin, and concentrate on his differences with McCain.

If the Troopergate scandal is all that the lefist whackos can obsess about than the Democratic Party is pathetic. Sarah Palin is self made. She did not ride the trouser cuffs of her husband into public service. She actually accomplished things and they are documented and can be fact checked; unlike that other woman.

She represents everyman; the kind of people the founding fathers wanted to run this government. She is much better suited than the intellectual idiots and Mensa Morons we have in office now- from both parties.

In there desperation to make history through the use of symbolism the Democrats chose two products of corruption- Obama and Clinton- who had no experience and enough baggage to ground a commercial jet liner. The inexperienced Black defeated the inexperienced woman. So, they have their moment of symbolism. Their bright and shining lie. That is all it is. Symbolism. A magic act. A cheap parlor trick.

When I hear the progressives mocking Palin's experience, what I hear is "Nya, Nya, you are idiots for putting a 2nd grader up for VP. WE are running a 3rd grader.

While Palin's values may not be mine, she does live them. What values does Obama have? Yes he says pretty things, but what has he lived?!! During the primary we learned that he said what the netroots wanted to hear, but had his advisers confide differently to foreign leaders. One would think his values were a reflection of what he heard during Sunday services. Does anyone want to go there? He values what will work for him in the moment. He has no guiding star. What hard choice has Obama ever made? Don't say his vote against funding the troops. That was a very popular vote among his constituents and can in no way be deemed a difficult choice.

And for the record, I've been resigned to McCain since he secured the nomination. Palin has made no difference in my vote.

If she ever becomes President then what will she do to people who she has a personal disagreement with anyway? Sic the FBI on them? Use the power of the Federal Government to lean on their employers to get fired? Blacklist them so they can't get another job?

Did I miss your post about Obama lawyer telling the DOJ they should prosecute the Simmons guy for his video? Or threatening the stations that showed it? Or arresting the ABC producer?

Or the one about silencing Stanley Kurtz by blocking access to material in a publically funded library?

What was the deal about the Travel Office folks at the White House many moons ago? Or how FBI files got stashed in the White House?

If Obama were to be elected, he would be the most inexperienced president since Lincoln. That is not a mis print.

wikipedia (not always authoratative -- but here goes ...)

Abraham Lincoln

Summary: Lincoln had experience in the military, ran a small business, and worked many years as a lawyer (at least 23 --does that count as a business)? There are records of many of his cases and his positions which are well documented. (Unlike BHO.)

"Lincoln was involved in more than 5,100 cases in Illinois alone during his 23-year legal career. Though many of these cases involved little more than filing a writ, others were more substantial and quite involved. Lincoln and his partners appeared before the Illinois State Supreme Court more than 400 times." At least one case was used as case law (not sure if that's the right terminology.)

He served 4 terms in the Illinois legislature in addition to his later term in the US House of Representatives.

"Drawing on remnants of the old Whig, Free Soil, Liberty and Democratic parties, he was instrumental in forming the new Republican Party. In a stirring campaign, the Republicans carried Illinois in 1854 and elected a senator. Lincoln was the obvious choice, but to keep the new party balanced he allowed the election to go to an ex-Democrat Lyman Trumbull. [JAL He understood "unity?"] At the Republican convention in 1856, Lincoln placed second in the contest to become the party's candidate for Vice-President."

The Lincoln - Douglas debates were actually covered nationally, so people knew who he was and what he believed. It seems he lost a run for senator to Douglas by gerrymandering.

So the NY Times (and "conventionial wisdom") is a little disengenous in minimizing Abraham Lincoln's record.

JFK - More experience than Obama, but still light in that area, quickly tested by the Soviets and almost got us anihilated in a nuclear war.

JFK served in the US military. He served 6 years in the US House and 7 in the US Senate.

He wrote a couple books, just like Barack Obama ... Oh! Wait! ... they were about OTHER people! As a matter of fact even thoughJFK came from a majorly screwed up American success story family he didn't take us on his personal therapeutic journey with him and charge us for the privilege.

I'm jaundiced -- and jealous today. I can't gut a moose.

LBJ Veep and legislative leadershipNixon VeepFord - Never got elected, doesn't count, still more experienced than Obama by a loooong shot.Carter Governor of GA.Reagan Governor of CABush per Veep, couldn't possibly list his major accomplishments here.Clinton Governor of ArkansasBush fils Governor of Texas.

The Democratic talking point buzzword about Palin is cynical. I've seen it used about 10 times so far. Bonus points to anyone who can find which politburo first issued it.

The reason why you've heard that word a lot is because it's true. It may not be an original observation, but it's more important to be right than to be "original". It's no more of a talking point than pointing out the fact that George W. Bush was the Governor of Texas. Facts are stubborn things.

You take exception to me stating "Getting behind the wheel of one's cop car with a cold one in one's hand? Probably just the way they do things in Alaska."

Obviously I was trying to be a little flippant there, but I don't disagree that this is inappropriate behavior for a state trooper. One for which a trooper should certainly receive disciplinary consequences, such as a suspension, which Wooten did receive. I imagine that it was significant to the disciplinary commission that the only witnesses to this conduct were a married couple who were friends of the father-in-law, that the conduct occurred quite a while before the complaint was made, and that the complaint was finally made in the context of a custody battle with the father-in-law's daughter. Wooten denied he'd done it, but the investigator found the testimony of the father-in-law's friends more credible and concluded that Wooten had done it.

Revenant thinks devoid of reason my assertion that "I'm more persuaded than before that it's very likely that many of these accusations by Palin and sis were primarily designed to give sis a leg up in her fight for custody of the children."

From the Anchorage Daily News article: "As the investigation got under way in 2005, Wooten was in the midst of a bitter divorce from Palin's sister, Molly McCann. The couple was fighting over custody of their two young children. Accusations flew from both sides... The troopers' investigation into Wooten began after Chuck Heath -- Wooten's father-in-law and Palin and McCann's dad -- alerted troopers about a domestic violence protective order McCann had obtained against Wooten on April 11, 2005. McCann filed for divorce the same day, according to the court docket. The trooper had not physically assaulted his wife but intimidated her and threatened to shoot him, Heath told troopers, according to a memo about the complaint. The same day, a concerned neighbor of the couple called troopers with more accusations, including alcohol abuse, based on what Heath and McCann had relayed to him. Wooten seemed 'disconnected' lately, the neighbor said. He told troopers that Heath and McCann were afraid to call troopers themselves."

This is standard fare for nasty divorces involving custody issues. When trying to paint the other parent as unfit, it's standard practice to immediately get a protective order and to get everybody and his brother to start drumming up accusations of everything the opposing party ever might have done wrong, even if nobody bothered to make a complaint at the time the alleged incidents actually occurred.

True to form, Revenant concludes that I must have gone through a nasty divorce myself and have some issues I need to work out. No, I haven't had the pleasure of personally going through a divorce, but I have had occasion to represent people in this situation, where the facts all too often get blown out of proportion.

To reiterate once again, I like just about everything about Palin, except for this disturbing scandal. I guess the use of government office to tip the scales of justice in disputes over the custody of children in favor of one's own family members just sticks in my craw.

With respect to experience, someone said (maybe I saw it here) that the relevant questions are:

1) What have you run?2) What have done?

Lets review the answers:

Obama:

1) nothing2) wrote a book about himself

Bidden:

1) nothing2) As the Senator from MBNA and a state about the size of Austin, he's been a member of a 535 person committee since 1972.

McCain:

1) Several U.S. Navy units. One of the senior officers in the 4th Allied POW Wing.

2) Right about Iraq, right about the Surge, refused to change his mind with the political wind. Pushed campaign finance reform through the Congress, frequently works directly with members of the other party to accomplish goals.

Palin:

1) Ran a small fishing business, a family of seven, the local PTA, city councilman and mayor of her home town, member the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, and the most popular Governer in America.

2) Actively fought corruption in her own political party, firing 35 political appointees of the last Republican governor, some of whom wound up in jail for taking bribes from oil companies.

Stood up to oil companies to ensure that they lived up to their promises to the taxpayers.

Lowered taxes.

Refused federal money for the 'bridge to nowhere'.

It's clear to any rational person that the Republican ticket brings far more real experience to the country than the Democrat ticket.

Oh, Fort Worth is still bigger (how many times?)than a community organised by a community organizer. Running a town of 5000 in her previous life seems (I'm cynical here) a little more complicated than running voters' registration drives. Making payrolls in her previous previous life seems more challenging than throwing one's patron's money to one's pet projects.

Oops, I'm comparing the credentials of a VP wannabe to those of a P wannabe. Sorry, it's so natural to compare "inexperienced" with "inexperienced", a SAT verbal thing that I can't get rid of. My bad.

Oh, she hasn't toured European capitals in the summer to soak up foreign policy experiences either. Now, that is a negative comes Nov. Oops, again I compare a VP w with a P w. Can't help it.

Republican pundits may not like her, but how many votes do they have? They can't forgive McCain for all those years of slighting them. No big loss there. Unlike Democrats who value talking heads' exceptionally unexceptional opinions, bended and swayed by them; Republican hicks can't follow their betters' reasonings, waste their votes on whomever they darned please. They chose a pundit-disapproved candidate to the Dem's pundit-created candidate.

Gaffes she shall make? Why don't some bloggers start four columns of gaffes, one for each candidate. It'll be fun to savor them in the middle of the long dark global warmed winters, won't it? Some hick's idea of fun.

Specifically, it was that a**hat Perot who, on his way of getting Clinton elected by taking votes away from the Republican base, pulled a double Arkansas whammy in slighting Clinton by pointing out that running the corner grocer was not the same as running Walmart.

As the investigation got under way in 2005, Wooten was in the midst of a bitter divorce from Palin's sister, Molly McCann. The couple was fighting over custody of their two young children. Accusations flew from both sides.

Troopers eventually investigated 13 issues and found four in which Wooten violated policy or broke the law or both:

• Wooten used a Taser on his stepson.

• He illegally shot a moose.

• He drank beer in his patrol car on one occasion.

• He told others his father-in-law would "eat a f'ing lead bullet" if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce.

Beyond the investigation sparked by the family, trooper commanders saw cause to discipline or give written instructions to correct Wooten seven times since he joined the force, according to Grimes' letter to Wooten.

Palladian--the problem is of course that team O hasnt had time to focus group their responses--when that happens we will see a common theme emerge I am guessing--right now they are like chimpanzees throwing shit in the zoo--and speaking of that, has anyone noticed Obama looks like a chimp with those BIG ears? Except, of course, chimps don't smoke.

I don't know why my fellow Obama supporters are making such a big deal about the experience thing. I keep reading "Oh goody, now McCain can't say Obama is inexperienced!" That's not Obama's biggest weakness. His biggest weakness is "he's not like most americans." Palin blows Obama out of the water when it comes to the "who is most like voters in appalachia?" test and the "who is most like the downscale undecided white voter" test. That's why McCain picked her and not Romney, who would have been a shoe in if the economy was in better shape. If she just sticks with the script - the script being her biography and her willingness to support McCain, and doesn't try to get too fancy, she will have served her role. And democrats get too nasty, the Hillary people may be re-energized.

There's a long-time, old school Republican pol from the Mat-Su Valley (Sarah's haunts) by the name of Lyda Green. Lyda was for many years a popular, steam rolling Senator who cobbled together a conservative Rep-Dem coalition down in Juneau that ran roughshod over the interests of most everyone in Alaska 'cept those who favored killing wolves from the air (I exaggerate only slightly).

Almost two years ago Sarah was sworn in as governor. Dear blue-haired Lyda and the boys attempted to stop or at least blunt virtually every initiate Sarah put before the legislature. Lyda recently announced her retirement from politics "to spend more time with her family."

Ask any Alaskan who watches politics in our grand state even remotely and they will all tell you one thing: do not underestimate Sarah Palin. The political landscape here is littered with pols who opted to "spend more time with their families." Well, except for those pols who are not serving time in Federal Correction Institutions in Oregon and California.

I am assuming the cynical word forcused group well because it doesnt directly attack Sarah Palin. and lets see: cynical: that is choosing a totally new african american senator who has spent more time campaigning than he has being a senator--who hasnt even held hearings on the committee he chairs; oh yeah--but he was editor of Harvard law review--thats going to play real good in PA, OH and WV--Oh wait, it didnt. And then he chooses a thirty year gasbag with hair plugs to be his running mate--yeah, tell me cynical. I am assuming the cynical word forcused group well because it doesnt directly attack Sarah Palin.

The leftards just don't understand. They may well never really know what just hit them. With one swell foop McCain went from being an outcast amongst conservatives who were supporting him most begrudgingly if at all, to completely energizing and jazzing the base unlike anything since Reagan. Election 2008 just became a whole new ballgame.

somefeller: when media matters starts complaining about sexism from the dems and MSM, I am right and you are the dumbass--your mileage may vary of course--lets see what the women who post here and on Hillaryforum have to say--you lose, bubba

Alaska has more people than Vermont. It has more land, more resources, more of everything except perhaps idiots. No one complained about Howard Dean's state.

At it's current rate of growth Alaska will soon be larger than Delaware. And Biden has never been Governor. His only executive experience is granting himself more time to bloviate as committee chair.

If my county, Orange County CA, was a State it would be Iowa. If it were a city it would be Chicago. Next door is Los Angeles County which would be somewhere in the range of North Carolina or Georgia and easily larger than NYC. Does that mean Supervisors from there are highly qualified leaders?

A member of the California State Senate represents more than 900,000 people. Does this make make those 40 people more qualified than the Senators from six States and every member of the House?

No job can prepare one to be President. It is a unique job with unique demands. But Palin is at least as qualified as Biden or Obama who have never produced anything except hot air and bad legislation ( in Biden's case ). And I say that as a "none of the above" voter. If the GOP ticket were inverted I might vote for it. If the Democratic ticket were it inverted it would simply be old style corruption over new style.

Why is this "cynical"? Because John "put the country first" McCain, who has been blasting Obama all summer as a political maneuver artist, chose a politically expedient person he has only met once a few months ago because: a) she's a woman (a demo where he needs votes); b) she's a social conservative (a demo where he needs credibility); and c) she has no record. She's a symbolic choice, an example of what the Republicans would call identity politics.

I am not underestimating her, but I honestly don't sense, from her published record, that she thinks much about the world outside Alaska (i.e., her comments on Iraq, energy policy, etc.). Obama may be a neophyte, but at least he's a relatively worldly (what the yobs would call "elitist") one.

Therefore, I'll continue to stand by the politburo on this one. Cynical. Not evil -- hell, all pols are cynical -- self-interest, venal, you name it. But let's call it as it lies and stop pretending that Saint John is above politics.

Hey. I work in Fort Worth. It's a great city, and sure as hell beats the hell out of Dallas. (Which youc an tell, b/c on the weekend, they're the ones coming *here* to spend money.) All you yankees top to bottom, assuming that FW is a pejorative can go suck on a toad.

So... in order to not be cynical McCain would have had to chose a VP pick that no one would like much?

Am I misunderstanding this?

The proof that it's a cynical pick is that it's a politically fortunate pick that is going to work on a variety of levels.

"Put the USA first" by picking the "best" person who would most certainly not get elected is hardly putting the USA first, is it? Getting elected is a minimum requirement for doing anything at all; good, better or best.

So... in order to not be cynical McCain would have had to chose a VP pick that no one would like much? Am I misunderstanding this?

I think you are.

"Cynical" is a way for Obama supporters to say "McCain picked an unqualified woman just because she's a woman, to attract Hillary voters" without actually being caught on tape attacking yet another female opponent as unqualified.

It is, to borrow a phrase the Obama camp loves to use, a coded appeal to bigotry. :)

It's somewhat comical to see the lefties question the experience of McCain's VP pick after having just nominated someone whose claim to high office rests on 143 days in the Senate with ZERO executive experience and ZERO accomplishments other than self promotion.

It's somewhat comical to see the lefties question the experience of McCain's VP pick after having just nominated someone whose claim to high office rests on 143 days in the Senate with ZERO executive experience and ZERO accomplishments other than self promotion.

Too many of you are reflexively Republiphobic.That's why when Palin has appeared on TV & in web vids you didn't take the time to observe her.I have.In debating Palin Biden is going to come off as a dusty, fossilized Foghorn Leghorn.

If Alaska were other states by area it could be Wisconsin,New York, Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont, Massachusetts,New Jersey, Delaware, and California put together. Not a comment on Palin's experience one way or another, but rather an observation that what you've done is more important than where you're from.